httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: apache/linux modules
Date Thu, 05 Feb 1998 23:38:42 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> 
> Seems to me that the divide here is that Roy is talking about what can
> be done with autoconf/automake, and you are talking about what your
> experience is with what people have done with it. I'm interested to know
> whether you have come across _any_ autoconf based programs that actually
> do work out of the box, or whether you universally have problems?
> 

Generally, the less complicated the "stuff" that configure needs to
do, the better it works. Also, the more vanilla your setup the
better as well. Generally, though, I find that some "FEATURES"
(in the autoconf version of the word) aren't defined as such, meaning
that you can't enable/disable them during the build. If configure
generates lots of Makefile's and *.h files, then this means a
tedious hand-fix after the build (assuming you can track down the
files created). One thing I like about the Wall Configure script
is that, right before it goes ahead and works it's magic, it
stops and lets you look through the config.sh file to make
any changes. With this approach, even if the "auto-sensing" goes
wrong, you can make some simple fixes at one spot and not have to
worry about the final hand-editing.

With the options that Apache now uses, the configure.in file will
be quite complex... As long as we do it _right_ then autoconf
is a nice solution. The biggest deficiency IMO is not autoconf
itself, or it's concept, but crappy configure.in and no easy way
to overrule some things until it's too late.

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Mime
View raw message